Some people just do not know when to quit. To borrow a line from the movie, Gladiator, “A people should know when they are conquered.” In a feeble effort to salvage his failed and embarrassed career as an Iraq correspondent, Peter Arnett decides to voice his opinion again.

I guess we are to believe Arnett because he was so credible with his news stories in 2003 covering the War on Iraq. It would be a toss up as the least credible in Iraq between Perter Arnett and Baghdad Bob.

For some reason after we have captured Saddam Hussein, allowed free elections to occur in Iraq, are rebuilding their infrastructure and set an example of Democracy for the Middle East; we are supposed to care or believe that Saddam’s son Uday was poised to topple his father. For what reason? Arnett seems to be a day late and a dinar short.

What is most puzzling from the man who claimed the US Military plan was failing as “shock and awe” was going on around him now claims the following in some form acknowledgment that Uday was the conquering hero. Is this sympathy for the slain Uday:

“According to Arnett, the oldest son of the Iraqi dictator had long been chafing under his father’s iron fisted rule and blamed his father for the punishing international sanctions on the country. ”

“Though it has not been reported until now, Uday Hussein was the biggest proponent of regime change inside Iraq,” Arnett wrote.

After telling us that the invasion of Iraq was a war for oil, that UN sanctions were working and the American military war plan was a failure, Peter Arnett in his infinite wisdom is now trying to say that GWB never had to go to war against Saddam because Uday was going to do the job anyhow. Somehow having Uday is supposed to be better than Saddam. Uday was supposed to be GWB’s ally in all this as Arnett makes the reference to “regime change”. Uday misunderstood? A benevolent man who looked to save Iraq from his father and the sanctions? I guess Arnett does not wish to read the many accounts of Uday’s torture. How many more failed efforts to condemn the war effort in Iraq will Arnett try as the Iraqi people were actually able to vote in a democratic process with free and open election. I guess Arnett is suggesting that if Uday was in power Iraq would no longer have elections like under his father, Saddam Hussein.

Once again Peter Arnett has allowed facts to get in the way of a great story. The Iraqi people have not only had free elections but are also setting an example for other Middle Eastern countries that democracy is possible. Arnett came to fame during the first Gulf War reporting with CNN and it appears he needs to fade away just as the network has. Arnett has lost the chance to be believed.